space? Is the world restricted to our views?
(and I mean it broader than just numbers).
Best regards
John Mikes
- Original Message -
From: "Brent Meeker" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Everything-List"
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 5:54 PM
Subject: RE: Have all possible e
>-Original Message-
>From: Norman Samish [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Sent: Monday, June 27, 2005 4:33 AM
>To: everything-list@eskimo.com
>Subject: Re: Have all possible events occurred?
>
>
>
>>>Norman Samish writes: Stathis, when you say "if y
;t believe this both-alive-and-dead-until-observed
stuff! There's got to be another answer to the questions that the
dual-state cat resolves.
Norman
- Original Message -
From: "Stephen Paul King" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To:
Sent: Sunday, June 26, 2005 9:06 AM
Subjec
At 11:07 PM 6/26/2005, Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
R. Miller writes:
"Stathis Papaioannou" writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to
distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works
as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there
>>Norman Samish writes: Stathis, when you say "if you believe that
>>everything possible exists" are you implying that everything possible need
>>NOT exist (thus refuting Tegmark)? Wouldn't this mean that space-time was
>>not infinite? What hypothesis could explain finite space-time?
>Brent
R. Miller writes:
"Stathis Papaioannou" writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to
distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process
works
as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then
there
will always be at least one version of you who
Norman Samish writes:
"Stathis Papaioannou" writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to
distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process
works
as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there
will always be at least one version of you w
At 10:22 AM 6/26/2005, Norman Samish wrote:
"Stathis Papaioannou" writes: Of course you are right: there is no way to
distinguish the original from the copy, given that the copying process works
as intended. And if you believe that everything possible exists, then there
will always be at least
Dear Norman,
You ask a very important question!
As I see it, we need to show that mere *existence* is equivalent to
"occurance". I would argue that "*occurance* is relational and contextual
and *existence* is not. Therefor, the mere a priori *existence* of all
possible OMs, Copies, Worl
9 matches
Mail list logo
